GDPR covers 72.9% of APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) System
43 of the 59 controls in APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) System are already satisfied by evidence you collected for GDPR. 16 are genuine gaps. Every claim below was judged against both control sets and then argued against; the ones that did not survive are published further down with the reason each failed.
What this leaves you to do
APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) System has 59 controls. Holding GDPR already evidences 43 of them, so the work in front of you is 16 controls, not 59, which is 27% of the standard rather than all of it.
That is the whole claim. Every number in that sentence comes from the two counts above it and can be re-derived from the free tools without taking our word for any of it.
In money, using only our numbers. The full report is $299 and names 43 controls of APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) System you do not have to implement again, which is $6.95 per control identified. That arithmetic uses our price and our count and assumes nothing about you.
In your hours, using your assumption. We do not know what a control costs you to implement, so pick the column that looks like your organisation. These are your figures, not our claim.
| If a control takes you | 4 hours | 8 hours | 16 hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| the 43 already evidenced are | 172 hours | 344 hours | 688 hours |
| and the 16 remaining are | 64 hours | 128 hours | 256 hours |
Multiply by your own rate. We publish no rate because we have not measured yours, and a number built on an invented rate is the kind of claim this platform exists to argue against.
This number is directional. It says how much of APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) System your GDPR evidence satisfies. The reverse pair is a different number, often very different, because a security standard has enormous depth for access control and almost none for lawful basis or data subject rights.
66 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-20, review level machine verified. Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.
Where the gaps are
Coverage is never evenly spread. A source standard usually satisfies one part of a target almost completely and barely touches another, and which part is which is the thing worth knowing before you plan the work.
Theme level, not control level, deliberately. The per-control list of what is evidenced and what is a gap is the report itself, so publishing it here would be publishing the thing being sold.
Claims that held
A sample. Each one names the control whose evidence does the work, the control it satisfies, and why.
Requires the risk of harm to individuals assessed and measures set to address it.
Requires safeguards designed in against risks of varying likelihood and severity to individuals.
Requires collection, purposes, recipients and rights described at the point of collection.
Requires that description be concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible.
Requires data adequate, relevant and limited to what the purpose needs, lawfully obtained.
Requires by default only the data necessary for each purpose be collected.
Permits a new purpose only on consent, legal mandate or a documented compatibility test.
Requires measures that both ensure and demonstrate compliance, reviewed and updated.
Claims that did not hold
Nothing proposed for this pair was rejected in review. That is unusual and worth knowing rather than hiding: it means the candidate set was small and every candidate held.
The full report
Everything above is a sample. The report is every evidenced control and every gap, with the reasoning and the source document behind each one, in a form you can hand to an assessor. $299, emailed immediately.
Buy this crosswalk